I haven't tried the Sigma, but I have the O45 and absolutely love it. It's sharp, has beautiful bokeh, focuses quickly and accurately, has great contrast and colours, and it's tiny and very well-built. I can't think of a single shortcoming.

However...I do see your problem. You'd only have two lenses, both aimed at doing much the same thing. If I were you, I'd possibly consider selling the Sigma 30 and buying a wider prime (which one depends on your budget) to help you spread out FLs a little bit. For example the Olympus 17 2.8 (or Panasonic 14 2.5 or Panasonic 20 1.7) and the 45 1.8 would make a great pair on a budget.

The Sigma is excellent and usually it's attraction over the 45mm is it's price. If the cost is similar you might as well get the 45mm - it'll be more versatile, focus quickly and there's not much practical difference in terms of DOF / subject isolation. I don't believe anyone has ever regretted purchasing the 45mm.

If I were you, I'd possibly consider selling the Sigma 30 and buying a wider prime

Click to expand...

This is an excellent suggestion - swap the 30mm for something a bit wider wider and you'll have a great kit that will cover you for most situations. Many options here, If you're on a tight budget you could consider swapping the 30 for the sigma 19mm.

The Sigma is excellent and usually it's attraction over the 45mm is it's price. If the cost is similar you might as well get the 45mm - it'll be more versatile

Click to expand...

I have both. You are correct in saying the 45 is more versatile, and it's an excellent lens in pretty much every way. Like most who have posted, I agree that it's probably the better choice if you're only going to have one. That being said, the 60 renders better. More contrast and pop (and probably sharper too). Trust me on this one guys (or check around on the forums), the 60 is worth the $230 USD without question.

I have both. You are correct in saying the 45 is more versatile, and it's an excellent lens in pretty much every way. Like most who have posted, I agree that it's probably the better choice if you're only going to have one. That being said, the 60 renders better. More contrast and pop (and probably sharper too). Trust me on this one guys (or check around on the forums), the 60 is worth the $230 USD without question.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to agree with this. I also have both. Yes, the 45 is more versatile, especially indoors or in low light, but I love the rendering on the 60 and use it whenever I can. Outdoors it's just a fabulous lens. That said, the 45 is a classic for a reason, and I will never regret that purchase, either.

I think if you choose the 45, the idea mentioned earlier of swapping your Sigma 30 with a wider focal length like a Sigma 19 or perhaps the Oly 25 is worth considering. My prime trio is 25/45/60 right now and I use all 3 regularly and do not feel they overlap too much.

I love the sigma: It renders beautifully, and it is sharper than the Oly 45 in all of the quantitative reviews. That having been said, having the f1.8 of the Oly for only $20 more would make me likely lean towards the 45mm.

I have owned both. The 45 is best optimized for portraits while the Sigma 60 is more like a short telephoto with good close up abilities. Both are very good but are different. The 60 to me is more similar to the 75 1.8, with the sharpness but without the shallow DOF. In your case I might opt for the 45 because the 1.8 makes a noticeable difference in rendering. I'd use the 60 as a fast alternative to a slower telephoto zoom.

Nothing is forever, especially lenses in this price range, which you can collect slowly. Buy the 45mm now and you'll have your have a fast prime.You will have more money again in the future for something else, and it probably will be another fast prime.

Well... Back in the days of silver photography, I loved my 90 mm and dislike my 135 mm. So I bought the 45 Oly and cannot say anything about the Sigma.

The only downside of the 45 mm Olympus lens is that its closest focusing distance is 50 cm (20 inches) which is a bit long IMO. Otherwise... Small, sharp, quick.

In case you do macro photography, the weatherproof 60 mm Olympus may be interesting. It is much more expensive than the Sigma though, and the focusing is not quick, like all macro lenses -- it is still usable for general purpose photography.

I own the 45/1.8 and the 60/2.8 and enjoy using both of them for portraits. I'd suggest the 45 because it is faster, more versatile, and a better size for your tiny pl6. The 60 is actually an aps-c lens with a built-in adapter for the u4/3 mount, so it's pretty chunky, even on my ep5.

As you say you want a portrait lens rather than a macro, the 45 probably makes more sense.

A big thumbs down from me to the idea of selling the 30, which seems to come from people who don't actually have it.

Click to expand...

Sorry I just think the 30 and 45 are too close. I am not saying the 30 is bad at all, you can see my photos in the Sigma 30mm image thread. The 45 seems to suit his needs most, and I would recommend getting a 20mm or 25mm in place of the 30. In fact, ALL these lenses in question are good. Pick the length you want to work with and enjoy.